Someone has leaked internal documents from the Heartland Institute, a …

Share this story

Update: The Heartland Institute has acknowledged that some of the documents were theirs, but claims that a strategy document is fraudulent. Although other sources indicate that the Heartland is preparing an educational program, none speak to the motivation behind this program.

The scientific findings relevant to climate change generally appear in journals that the public will never look at. Instead, the public battle over the science and its policy implications often boils down to a battle between scientific societies like the AAAS and National Academies of Science and think tanks like the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute, which contest the scientific consensus. The Heartland has even set up a contrarian counterpart to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the NIPCC (for "nongovernmental" and "international," naturally).

Yesterday, a series of documents that allegedly originated form the Heartland were leaked to a prominent climate blog. The documents reveal that most of the funding for its climate activities come from a small range of very generous donors, and that big plans are afoot for 2012. If the Heartland has its way, it will fund the launch of a new website by meteorologist and climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and prepare a school curriculum intended to keep teachers from addressing climate science.

The documents include a detailed financial statement, which lists all the sources of income. The Heartland is generally antiregulatory (issues its tackled in the past include everything from smoking laws to telecom regulations), and its list of small donors reflects that. Time Warner Cable and AT&T both show up, as does Microsoft. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies also make appearances, along with the Koch brothers and GM. Combined, these large donors ($10,000 or more) provided about three-quarters of the Heartland's $4.5 million budget last year. A single anonymous donor provided about another $1 million.

A glance through the documents (their authenticity has yet to be confirmed; see below), however, quickly reveals that this broad range of donors isn't involved in the Heartland's climate activities. The NIPCC reports, for example, consume about $300,000 a year, but all of that comes from two donors. Half of the cost of Watts' new website (which is rather pricey, at $88,000) comes from a single donor. Another donor has pledged $100,000 towards the school curriculum project.

The content of Watts' next project isn't made clear in the document (his current website is still focused on arguing about the accuracy of the temperature record long after the issues have been reanalyzed to death). But the description of the project that will target public schools is striking.

UPDATE: The following two paragraphs regarding the education strategy are based on a document that the Heartland Institute says is fraudulent.

After complaining that "Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective," the document indicates that the $100,000 will go to David Wojick, an engineer with a PhD in the philosophy of science. Wojick will be funded to address "the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming that isn’t alarmist or overtly political." To that end, he'll produce a set of modules that explicitly borrows the "teach the controversy" strategy, with each module dedicated to terming different aspects of climate change controversial—humanity's involvement, the accuracy of climate models, the role of CO2 as a pollutant, etc.

This strategy is just as cynical as it sounds. Most of these topics aren't scientific controversies, and one document explicitly notes that the modules aren't focused on enabling teachers to handle climate science better; instead, Heartland hopes to dissuade them from teaching it at all. "Effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain—two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Wojick isn't the only individual who will be paid well for his role in contesting climate science. Craig Idso, a former coal lobbyist who now helps manage the NIPCC, is getting $11,600 per month for doing so. Fred Singer, a former scientist who often writes editorials that contest the scientific consensus, gets $5,000 a month. A number of others, some still in academia, receive smaller amounts.

UPDATE: the following paragraph is based on information from a document that the Heartland claims is a forgery.

Heartland also claims to be able to mobilize less-formal means of contesting the scientific community. It says it coordinates its work with Watts, along with "other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts." It has also used Forbes blogs (one of its senior fellows has a regular column there) to get its message out. However, its love affair with Forbes is apparently on the rocks, since, " they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [The Pacific Institute's Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own."

Some of these documents are focused on fundraising, and thus might be the product of a bit of wishful thinking. Still, they make the Institute's strategic vision pretty clear, and many of the fundraising details and payments are required as part of tax documents. The most significant question is whether their entire content is authentic.

Many of the extensive details are so mundane that there's little doubt that the leaked documents were based on legitimate ones. The only question is whether some of the text within them has been modified prior to the leak. The Heartland Institute hasn't yet commented publicly on the documents' authenticity, nor has its communications director returned our calls.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that 4 of the supposedly controversial points about climate science listed in the teaching program seemed to be, in fact, controversial, while 2 did not seem to be. So, whether you like it or not, there is at least reasonable basis for teaching "skepticism" about certain parts of the "consensus."

What points were controversial, and which ones weren't? Do you have a link to that post?

To be clear here, the science is unequivical on the topic of climate change, and the people Heartland is funding are scientists who are perfectly capable of reading the papers the research produces. That they continue to deny it is itself proof of thier willingness to lie. For money. Even creating a course for schools that is intended to introduce doubt in the scientific consensus is a fraudulent attempt to undermine science to children.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that 4 of the supposedly controversial points about climate science listed in the teaching program seemed to be, in fact, controversial, while 2 did not seem to be. So, whether you like it or not, there is at least reasonable basis for teaching "skepticism" about certain parts of the "consensus." Now whether this particular program happens to be appropriate or productive for public school science curriculum is a different matter for discussion.

I seem to remember the ones you claimed were controversial actually are not.

I think it would first have to be demonstrated that he did something illegal. Unethical? Perhaps, I'm still on the fence on that.

You're on the fence about whether Gleick's actions were illegal and/or unethical? Seriously?

Yes, I am. The HI has repeatedly smeared the names and reputations of every prominent scientist involved in this field. They have done so using dirty, underhanded tactics, and did not hesitate to use the climategate emails out of context and without a second thought to their legality or how accurate the picture was that they painted. I am stopping far short of condoning Gleik's actions, but at the same time its difficult for me to condemn him either. How many times should a person accept being sucker punched in the face before they actually hit back? Two wrongs do not make a right, but the second one is usually at the least more difficult to condemn.

I cannot in all honestly claim that I wouldn't attempt to confirm my supsicions about an organization that dedicated its existence to smearing me. And I don't think others in this thread can credibly claim otherwise.

FOIA is the law of the land both in Britain and in the U.S. You are actually alleging that a conspiracy among "scientists" to violate these laws is not a matter for concern.

What conspiracy to violate those laws?

The one that ligne refers to, the one where tax-funded "scientists" were found conspiring to dodge some FOI requests.

ligne wrote:

the charges have withered from "proof that the earth is not warming, it's actually scientists faking data" to "ZOMFG PHIL JONES ONCE CALLED SOMEONE A DICK AND TRIED TO DODGE SOME FOI REQUESTS!!!!1!"

The section in question was already answered at the multiple inquiries. But basically since you bring it up, the data they were refusing to expose, as I understand it, was data they did not own and as such had no right to give away regardless of FOI.

Yeah, you are sorely mistaken.

Quote:

In a 2 February 2005 e-mail, Phil Jones advised Michael Mann:"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

In another e-mail sent in May 2008, Jones asked Mann:"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."

Heh. If those e-mails are written by innocent doves trying to meet the FOI laws, I've got a bridge to sell you.

In fact, you look like the kind of person who might be interested in a bridge. Let´s talk!

So, now that Peter Gleick (founder and director of the Pacific Institute) has admitted to fraud and deception on these "leaked docs", is Ars going to publish it with the same prominence, or is it time to go quiet on this story?

To be clear here, the science is unequivical on the topic of climate change...creating a course for schools that is intended to introduce doubt in the scientific consensus is a fraudulent attempt to undermine science to children.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that 4 of the supposedly controversial points about climate science listed in the teaching program seemed to be, in fact, controversial, while 2 did not seem to be...

I seem to remember the ones you claimed were controversial actually are not.

You should try re-reading the points instead of relying on your memory.

reflex-croft wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

You're on the fence about whether Gleick's actions were illegal and/or unethical? Seriously?

Yes, I am... I am stopping far short of condoning Gleik's actions, but at the same time its difficult for me to condemn him either... I cannot in all honestly claim that I wouldn't attempt to confirm my supsicions about an organization that dedicated its existence to smearing me. And I don't think others in this thread can credibly claim otherwise.

You decide not to do something because it's illegal and/or unethical. You don't decide whether something is illegal and/or unethical based on whether you think you'd do it.

So, now that Peter Gleick (founder and director of the Pacific Institute) has admitted to fraud and deception on these "leaked docs", is Ars going to publish it with the same prominence, or is it time to go quiet on this story?

Well, since Ars couldn't go quietly quiet on this, it labored mightily, and forth came...«Environment researcher admits leaking climate docs, claims they're genuine»Kudos. Nice lede. So let's talk about the researcher leaking the docs, let's deflect from the headline that in order to do so he engaged in identity theft, misrepresentation, stealing, wire-fraud, etc.

It's bad journalism to not accuse someone of committing crimes they haven't been charged with and/or convicted of at all? You're a blithering idiot.

In a 2 February 2005 e-mail, Phil Jones advised Michael Mann:"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

In another e-mail sent in May 2008, Jones asked Mann:"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."

Heh. If those e-mails are written by innocent doves trying to meet the FOI laws, I've got a bridge to sell you.

In fact, you look like the kind of person who might be interested in a bridge. Let´s talk!

Please show where any data was deleted or any requests no honored. Don't just quote-mine and act like a god damn creationist.

It's by his own admission that he undertook some kind of misrepresentation/identity and obtained documents that were not his, hence stealing. I'm not aware that wire fraud has been shown, however.

Misrepresentation, yes. Is that a headline-worthy word? Not really. Identity theft and stealing are specific crimes and he hasn't been charged with either one yet, is it responsible journalism to openly accuse him of these things in the headline? One might call such headlines "misrepresentation."

It's by his own admission that he undertook some kind of misrepresentation/identity and obtained documents that were not his, hence stealing. I'm not aware that wire fraud has been shown, however.

Misrepresentation, yes. Is that a headline-worthy word? Not really. Identity theft and stealing are specific crimes and he hasn't been charged with either one yet, is it responsible journalism to openly accuse him of these things in the headline? One might call such headlines "misrepresentation."

Journalists are not making up accusations against Gleick, they are reporting what he said himself. How can that be misrepresentation (unless the headline does not accurately reflect what he wrote in his own words)?

I find it hard to believe that several posters here actually want to debate this point.

To be clear here, the science is unequivical on the topic of climate change...creating a course for schools that is intended to introduce doubt in the scientific consensus is a fraudulent attempt to undermine science to children.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that 4 of the supposedly controversial points about climate science listed in the teaching program seemed to be, in fact, controversial, while 2 did not seem to be...

I seem to remember the ones you claimed were controversial actually are not.

You should try re-reading the points instead of relying on your memory.

reflex-croft wrote:

Kalessin wrote:

You're on the fence about whether Gleick's actions were illegal and/or unethical? Seriously?

Yes, I am... I am stopping far short of condoning Gleik's actions, but at the same time its difficult for me to condemn him either... I cannot in all honestly claim that I wouldn't attempt to confirm my supsicions about an organization that dedicated its existence to smearing me. And I don't think others in this thread can credibly claim otherwise.

You decide not to do something because it's illegal and/or unethical. You don't decide whether something is illegal and/or unethical based on whether you think you'd do it.

The question about ethics for me comes down to justification. And I can see a case being built for saying he was justified. That case has not been made to this point, but it is not outside the realm of credibility. Thats why I keep saying I'd like to know more about what actually happened.

FOIA is the law of the land both in Britain and in the U.S. You are actually alleging that a conspiracy among "scientists" to violate these laws is not a matter for concern.

What conspiracy to violate those laws?

The one that ligne refers to, the one where tax-funded "scientists" were found conspiring to dodge some FOI requests.

ligne wrote:

the charges have withered from "proof that the earth is not warming, it's actually scientists faking data" to "ZOMFG PHIL JONES ONCE CALLED SOMEONE A DICK AND TRIED TO DODGE SOME FOI REQUESTS!!!!1!"

The section in question was already answered at the multiple inquiries. But basically since you bring it up, the data they were refusing to expose, as I understand it, was data they did not own and as such had no right to give away regardless of FOI.

Yeah, you are sorely mistaken.

Quote:

In a 2 February 2005 e-mail, Phil Jones advised Michael Mann:"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

In another e-mail sent in May 2008, Jones asked Mann:"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."

Heh. If those e-mails are written by innocent doves trying to meet the FOI laws, I've got a bridge to sell you.

In fact, you look like the kind of person who might be interested in a bridge. Let´s talk!

More than half a dozen inquiries looked into this and found no wrongdoing. I'm willing to go with what multiple independent investigations found rather than taking conversations out of context and assigning the meaning that I want them to have to make my case for me.

Journalists are not making up accusations against Gleick, they are reporting what he said himself. How can that be misrepresentation (unless the headline does not accurately reflect what he wrote in his own words)?

I keep reading this and I don't see the words identity theft, stole, wire fraud, etc. When talking about legal issues, details matter. As it's been argued in this and other threads, what Gleick did may or may not fall afoul of several criminal statutes. It isn't obvious because of the details needed to satisfy those charges. Leveling false allegations against someone in an obviously harmful manner can leave a news source liable for a number of things, besides being kind of a shitty and injudicious way to operate at all.

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that several posters here actually want to debate this point.

You find it hard to believe that several posters here actually want to argue whether headlines should accuse someone of specific legal infractions before anything has actually be determined by legal experts, or even formal charges have been file? Seriously? I'm glad you're not a journalist.

So when someone steals your identity and credit card number, it isn't "theft" because you still have your identity and your credit card?

Wikipedia: "theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Try again.

Even if Wikipedia were the definitive resource for this, why would you insist on spinning the Wiki entry to argue your point?

Wikipedia wrote:

Theft: In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2]

Journalists are not making up accusations against Gleick, they are reporting what he said himself...

I keep reading this and I don't see the words identity theft, stole, wire fraud, etc.

Earlier I pointed out, in partial agreement with something you wrote, that I didn't think wire fraud has been shown. As for "identity theft" and "stole," however,

Peter Gleick wrote:

...in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name.

He got confidential materials that were meant for someone else ... by using their name. Are these words too ambiguous for you?

Quote:

When talking about legal issues, details matter.

We can start by talking about the details of the facts, with Gleick being the primary available source at this time. If you want to argue that, in point of fact, Gleick "stole" the materials but there is some legal definition under which it would not actually be "stealing," then by all means please make that clear. But aren't you the one who hates "weasel words"?

Quote:

You find it hard to believe that several posters here actually want to argue whether headlines should accuse someone of specific legal infractions before anything has actually be determined by legal experts, or even formal charges have been file? Seriously? I'm glad you're not a journalist.

So, in addition to being an expert on climate science, you're now an expert on journalistic ethics and a legal expert? Congratulations.

So when someone steals your identity and credit card number, it isn't "theft" because you still have your identity and your credit card?

Wikipedia: "theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Try again.

Even if Wikipedia were the definitive resource for this, why would you insist on spinning the Wiki entry to argue your point?

Wikipedia wrote:

Theft: In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2]

Let's look at MW then: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

If it isn't a physical object, it isn't theft. Theft, by law, is when you take away a physical object from someone.

Theft: In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2]

Let's look at MW then: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

If it isn't a physical object, it isn't theft. Theft, by law, is when you take away a physical object from someone.

And again you've left out the part of the entry that you don't want to deal with:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Definition of THEFT1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of itb : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

I find it fascinating that you're tried this trick twice in a row on this page alone... in a thread which is ultimately about, well, we should ask Wheels Of Confusion what the headline should say.

So you brought the words "identity theft" into the thread but now it's a problem with respect to ____ ? For the example I posed to wwif of "theft" of identity and credit card number?

1) My original post was describing a qualified possibility. 2) I am not a journalist writing headlines accusing people of crimes.

I have a hard time believing that you really don't grasp these distinctions.

Quote:

Well you apparently don't "disclaim" from offering your judgment on what should or shouldn't be done.

I don't think one needs to be an expert on journalism to say it's probably a bad idea to accuse people of being criminals in the headline before any charges have even been filed, as opposed to Xaxierltzmann's contention that Ars was remiss for not doing so.

Theft: In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.[1][2] The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[1][2]

Let's look at MW then: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

If it isn't a physical object, it isn't theft. Theft, by law, is when you take away a physical object from someone.

And again you've left out the part of the entry that you don't want to deal with:

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Definition of THEFT1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of itb : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

I find it fascinating that you're tried this trick twice in a row on this page alone... in a thread which is ultimately about, well, we should ask Wheels Of Confusion what the headline should say.

In case you didn't notice, both deal with property. As in physical belongings. Both embezzlement and burglary involve taking something away from someone else (money and belognings respectively).

The question about ethics for me comes down to justification. And I can see a case being built for saying he was justified. That case has not been made to this point, but it is not outside the realm of credibility. Thats why I keep saying I'd like to know more about what actually happened.

---- Disturbing, too, has been some of the reaction from climate activists. On the DeSmogBlog, ---- a website that devotes itself to “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” ---- Richard Littlemore writes:

-- Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve -- respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large.-- Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took-- a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions,-- he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for -- performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

So it would seem that many consider his actions commendable.

This part has me curious.

---- Only slightly more measured is this blogpost (The Morality of Unmasking Heartland)---- from scientist Stephan Lewandowsky:

-- Revealing to the public the active, vicious, and well-funded campaign of denial that-- seeks to delay action against climate change likely constitutes a classic public good.

According to the ars article...

-- After complaining that "Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist-- perspective," the document indicates that the $100,000 will go to David Wojick, an -- engineer with a PhD in the philosophy of science. Wojick will be funded to address -- "the absence of educational material suitable for K-12 students on global warming -- that isn’t alarmist or overtly political."

$100,000 is well funded? Is this a salary, pay for writing the material or what? Any way you look at it in the Bay area $100,000 is not a great yearly salary, it's not bad pay, but it's not "well paid" by any means. And if you have to look for other work when you're done, seems like a poor risk if you are already employed.

And I'm unclear how this 'educational material' was to be injected to the classroom, there are state and federal agencies who pretty much dictate what must be covered (and if I'm not mistaken, how they are to be covered). I'm not sure I see any clear threat to education here. Can someone clue me in if I've missed something here?

But it does seem clear that in this issue, many believe that the ends justify the means.

But right now it looks to me like this issue is pretty much done unless the HI does take Gleick to court and we see what 'discovery' can discover. Somehow I suspect that the HI won't let that happen, but they did let the material out in the first place, so who can tell.

I don't think one needs to be an expert on journalism to say it's probably a bad idea to accuse people of being criminals in the headline before any charges have even been filed, as opposed to Xaxierltzmann's contention that Ars was remiss for not doing so.

In the original exchange, XavierItzmann asserts that the headline, by describing what happened as a "document leak," failed to convey the most headline-worthy facts of what actually happened. Your response and the following discussions have focused on the legalese and not whether the headline should have had a different emphasis.

Why don't you believe that the headline could have gotten the major facts across more accurately while still using appropriate language?

Quote: "Assuming the Climate Strategy memo was not shared with the Institute’s entire Board, it would be extremely embarrassing for the memo’s author and inner circle recipients to admit they had withheld it from other Board members. This would create a powerful incentive for the author to deny this document’s authenticity: the implied insult to Board members that Heartland treats as second-class could be more damaging to Heartland than the public embarrassment of its inflammatory subject matter."

So, now that Peter Gleick (founder and director of the Pacific Institute) has admitted to fraud and deception on these "leaked docs", is Ars going to publish it with the same prominence, or is it time to go quiet on this story?

Well, since Ars couldn't go quietly quiet on this, it labored mightily, and forth came...«Environment researcher admits leaking climate docs, claims they're genuine»Kudos. Nice lede. So let's talk about the researcher leaking the docs, let's deflect from the headline that in order to do so he engaged in identity theft, misrepresentation, stealing, wire-fraud, etc.

It's bad journalism to not accuse someone of committing crimes they haven't been charged with and/or convicted of at all? You're a blithering idiot.

Quote: "Assuming the Climate Strategy memo was not shared with the Institute’s entire Board, it would be extremely embarrassing for the memo’s author and inner circle recipients to admit they had withheld it from other Board members. This would create a powerful incentive for the author to deny this document’s authenticity: the implied insult to Board members that Heartland treats as second-class could be more damaging to Heartland than the public embarrassment of its inflammatory subject matter."

First off, I thought blogs were not acceptable sources of information. Secondly, there's lots of speculation here, but nothing that would pass an honest peer review.

This is too long, I'll have to read it later, but about the conclusion...

-- The foregoing analysis demonstrates that the Climate Strategy Memo is an accurate-- executive summary of the information contained in budget and fundraising documents-- that were to be put before the Board at its January meeting.

Even if this is true it still says nothing about where the document originated.

-- We don’t know who wrote the “climate strategy” memo, when it was written, where it-- was written, why it was written, or how it came to be mailed by postal service to Peter -- Gleick. And contrary to The Heartland Institute’s written statements, they have offered -- no proof that it wasn’t someone associated with The Heartland Institute.

It starts off accurately, then complains that the HI has not proven a negative (that the HI was not, somehow, the source). How can something like this be 'proven'? Can you prove that you did not write the document?

I personally have no idea, but I don't think any amount of speculation is evidence for or against anything.

Addition: Just in case someone think's I'm defending the HI, I'm not. The rest of the material is damning enough, I don't see that it matters who wrote the document in question, the rest of the material stands regardless.

Apropos, if the partisans above really want to justify Dr. Gleick's actions, and argue that theft is not theft, etc., it makes one wonder to what extent they are willing to justify the nuttiness of AGW, the FOIA lawbreaking conspiracies, etc.

From the extent that they will go to see no theft where theft exists, one must conclude that the extent of their willful blindness is enormous, indeed.

Also, some media headlines without the level of whitewashing shown by Ars:

First off, I thought blogs were not acceptable sources of information.

What do you mean?

Quote:

Secondly, there's lots of speculation here, but nothing that would pass an honest peer review.

Peer review? For a blog post? You are not making sense

Quote:

Even if this is true it still says nothing about where the document originated.

If it is real, we may never know. Especially now that whoever got his hands on it knows that the HI is out for blood to possibly cover up the fact that they kept things hidden from some of the board members!

Quote:

More speculation, and some of it's quite over the top.

Yes, just like all the people speculating on Gleick being the author of the memo. I think it's about time someone spoke up against that over the top speculation.

Quote:

It starts off accurately, then complains that the HI has not proven a negative (that the HI was not, somehow, the source). How can something like this be 'proven'? Can you prove that you did not write the document?

Apropos, if the partisans above really want to justify Dr. Gleick's actions, and argue that theft is not theft, etc., it makes one wonder to what extent they are willing to justify the nuttiness of AGW, the FOIA lawbreaking conspiracies, etc.

What is "the nuttiness of AGW"? AGW is a scientific theory. Are you saying that the scientific theory suddenly got a mind and went insane?

What are these "FOIA lawbreaking conspiracies" you are referring to?

Quote:

Also, some media headlines without the level of whitewashing shown by Ars: